I've turned over a new leaf. I don't care about no one or nothing. Kill all the babies! I don't give a crap.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...ous-objection/
Sums up what I've always thought about Hobby Lobby.
Do you agree or disagree with these statements from the Rick Ungar/Forbes article?
"...these people are seeking to avoid their obligation under the law to provide their employees with a contraceptive benefit at the same time they are allowing their 401(k) to invest in—and profit from—these very products..."
"You simply can’t say that you will give your all in defense of your closely held beliefs when it suits you while seeking to make money in violation of those beliefs."
This is just another example of the problems caused when the government creates positive rights.
All of the female justices that voted against Hobby Lobby were appointed by Democrats so your reasoning/demogoguery doesn't hold up.
Let me show you. The female Supreme Court Justices are all feminists that hate men and believe that women having babies subjugates them to a life of domestic slavery to children. If I'm wrong, prove it.
The women I know, regardless of party, don't expect higher pay than men--just fairness. Same goes for free contraceptives and bras, although any contraceptives I ever got through insurance, whether I paid for the coverage or my employer did, weren't "free." They were a benefit I received for working. I'm not sure where all these women are that are cited so frequently on this board.
What law did the justices uphold?
Women make 97% of what a man makes in the same position. That's basically equal pay. There are other reasons why the whole population of women don't make as much as the whole population of men. The main reason is that women work more part-time jobs than men.
The SC upheld a Bill Clinton law that was passed in 1993: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...estoration_Act
I'm aware that the 77% figure that's always touted is not a fair comparison--it's across the board and doesn't take many relevant factors into account. From where did you get the 97% figure? I'd be interested to see the data.
Regarding the RFRA, I'd say they expanded the law rather than upheld it, but that's splitting hairs I suppose. Of course, they struck down parts of another law--so maybe it's a wash.